Russian aircraft stikes ISIS

good points......makes me think -----why don't they ban IEDs and car bombs?? they kill civilians.....

 

There has indeed been pretty strong evidence that Assad has used chemical weapons on his people. There have been numerous confirmed incidents of the use of chemical weapons in Syria as anyone who does a little research can tell. Some of them have a very strong linkage to Assad's regime (some are also linked to Daesh).

Assad is winning with Russian and Iranian assistance not all his opposition qualify as terrorist however and Assad himself would qualify as such by most standards.

Your attempt to assign the current situation in the Mid East to Western intervention is incredibly one sided and naïve.

 

My friend there is little doubt concerning chemical weapons present in Syria. Assads weapons program has been no secret and you are correct about the use of chemical weapons in Syria as well. The question is who used them? This is where it becomes a bit murky. There are many who point the finger at the Jihadis. These reports are reinforced by 3 major points. The first being that Daesh and Al Nusra got their hands on some of these weapons when over running half the country. The second being the crude methods of delivering these weapons.to their targets (mortar). Finally, Assad may be many things but he is not stupid. With the entire planet watching the events unfolding in Syria a chemical attack would result in political suicide. Neither Russia nor Iran would have backed Syria had Assad been responsible and rightfully so.

Everyone is of course entitled to their own opinion. IMHO, it's highly unlikely that Assad is responsible. He had nothing to gain and everything to lose by ordering such an attack. I find it easier to accept that the radicals are to blame. Unlike Assad they have everything to gain, nothing to lose and are known for barbarity. As for the chemical attack, no official blame was ever placed on Assad.

Yes, not all but an overwhelming majority of his opposition are radical movements or those who sympathize with them. Syrian govt. for example is coordinating with the Kurds and a few rebel groups who have also switched sides to fight the radicals.

As for my assessment of the Middle East: Iraq, Libya, Yemen were all sovereign states. They all fell victim to illegal Western intervention. Result? Libya and Yemen are completely failed states where federal institutions/programs have collapsed. Chaos and anarchy is rampant and both are breeding grounds for terrorism. Iraq, (Americas pride and joy; the beacon of democracy in the region and the example for all to follow ) is holding on by a thread. The country itself is split into three parts. The government, Kurds and ISIS all fighting for their share. Then there is Syria of course another Sovereign state which benefited from Western democracy.

I'm afraid I do not see anything naive from the above. Any country(s) operating in Syria without the approval of the Syrian Govt. or the United Nations is illegal. Russia for example has both.

Turkey has been shelling Syria for the last 4 days. Where is the media coverage? The outrage? Sanctions?

 

I think it's pretty well documented that Daesh has used chemical weapons (all be it with little effect) but there is also very strong evidence that Assad's forces have as well. Indeed they were the only ones who could air deliver them and that seams to have been the delivery method in a number of cases. Your assumptions as to whether or not Iran or Russia would have determined their backing based on this is just that and based on the evidence to date not particularly justified.

What did he have to gain by shelling and bombing civilian targets? It was a clear effort to terrorize and demoralize the opposition. Adding Chemicals to the mix would theoretically increase the effects would it not.

Illegal intervention? I'm unconvinced but that doesn't explain all the problems in the Mid East and indeed the interventions that have occurred (most of which were "legal") were due to existing problems.

You definition of legality seems to be if it is good for Russia it's legal and if it's not it isn't.

 

This has been an interest of mine since first making headlines. I have over time come across numerous reports but none that have officially set blame on the Assad regime. This is actually the first time I'm hearing about chemical weapons being delivered by the Air Force. Could please point me in the right direction? I'm genuinely interested in reading up on this.

Unless you think that Assad intentionally targeted civilians this isn't a fair question. Interesting, you then go on to say "clear effort to terrorize and demoralize the opposition". Is his opposition civilians? I personally don't have a problem with him terrorizing and demoralizing Al Nusra, Daesh or the many other such groups

Seems we view what is happening in Syria a bit differently.

I see this as a war where the Assad regime is fighting multiple and very dangerous radical movements all of which are funded by numerous states with the sole purpose off a regime change. I'm not mentioning the moderate opposition because they are small in number and with the exception of the Kurds almost completely unreliable.

Am I off?

How do you see this conflict?

If a nation uses military force in/on another sovereign state with out that's states legitimately recognized government or the UN, it's illegal. It's actually quite simple. Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen were all unilateral decisions NOT backed/supported/approved by the UN Security Council. Neither was Yugoslavia but who's counting?

Yes, there were other problems in the Mid East which existed and blaming them all on the West would be unfair. I will say however; the ones the West created are quite significant.

Russia is no exception to the law and neither is any other country.

 

Why does Russia NOW say that the so-called legal government may not take action and attack to get the areas back that once were theirs. Pretty confusing, I think, if thy arrived to back the legal government??!!

 

What are we referring to exactly?

 

Not banned per se, but is use is strictly limited:

Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons defines an incendiary weapon as "any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target". The same protocol prohibits the use of said incendiary weapons against civilians (already forbidden by the Geneva Conventions) or in civilian areas.

In an 2005 interview with RAI, Peter Kaiser, spokesman for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (an organization overseeing the CWC and reporting directly to the UN General Assembly), questioned whether the weapon should fall under the convention's provisions:
No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.
If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the convention legitimate use.
If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons.

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ld5zAedatYo

 

how ridiculous to ban certain weapons......an MG will chop you up and you still live.....mortar round will take your eyes out....any weapon can make you into a vegetable.......

 

So you disagree with the non-use of Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons?


There is only so much death/injury a bullet or normal grenade can cause.

Agents such as white phosphorus are extremely dangerous, not just to the initial victim, but even caregivers (1st responders, doctors / nurses), as in the case of white phosphorus, the substance can easily reignite, unless special care is taken.

 

if used on military targets, what's the difference? you're not trying to wound the enemy, but to kill him,---- permanently....you're are trying to win a war....trying to make war ''clean'' is ludicrous

 

You should think that through with what you know about those kinds of weapons (NBC). Their effects are not limited to that instant in time, nor just that immediate area. You know they are not going to just harm "military targets", already prior to their use.

Wounding an enemy is often more efficient than killing them; it takes more effort to remove the injured from the battlefield and take care of the wounded soldier, than to bury the dead. Which is why most land mines are designed to maim, and not kill.

Furthermore, when you view things from a larger scale than the individual fighting man, the object isn't to kill the enemy, but defeat them, in order to impose your will.

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

"What do we mean by the defeat of the enemy? Simply the destruction of his forces, whether by death, injury, or any other means—either completely or enough to make him stop fighting."
― Clausewitz, On War

 

I see a giant merry-go-round about to spin
just like the Washington Naval Treaties.....''we pledge no arms race"...then what happened?
Germany and Britain pledged ''not to bomb civilians"...then what happened?, hilter "" he bombed first"", ..Churchill ""no, he bombed first"" ..just so happens I started the book The Bombers and the Bombed
look at all the posts above--Assad, Daesh "" he used them first""

this from an IED, not WP or incendiary ....his picture included....and that's after many medical operations !! bold italics mine

but, what if the enemy is in the civilian area?? !!

WW2 deaths....total- around 55 million civilian around 29.5 million by non-NBC----....you mean those --NBC--kinds of weapons??
Hamburg--42,000 civilian deaths by non NBC--again non NBC

 

civilian deaths Korean War non NBC ---hundreds of thousands

Vietnam War non NBC --same

etc etc

when those tankers, mortarmen, infantrymen, pilots are firing, they are not aiming to wound, but to hit dead center!! kill shot!! ..as many as possible

my main point---how much nicer than NBC or incendiary... [ caps and bold for emphasis only....thanks all replies ]

 

Seriously, you do not think the figures for total number of deaths and civilian deaths would be greater still, had Hitler used Sarin gas at Normandy, and Churchill responded by dropping Anthrax all across Berlin, the Ruhr, Dresden, Hamburg and Münich? How long would large parts of Germany remain uninhabitable?

Or if MacArthur dropped the bomb on the Chinese?

My main point still, yes, they are indeed infinitely better than NBC or indescriminate use of incendiaries. Or are you seriously advocating the use of NBC weapons?

Every war game instance in the American MIlitary when NBC weapons are "used", escalates to truly horrendous amounts of casualties.

What about the sentence "...or in civilian areas" is unclear? Do you see a qualifier exempting the prohibition because it is inconvenient to you with an enemy there?

The purpose, of course, is to reduce the amount of human suffering amongst the civilian population. Even with these rules, civilians account for 90 percent of casualties in modern armed conflicts (source: ICRC). Now imagine they didn't exist...

 

''ok, no barrel bombs, no WP, no incendiary, no NBC.....when the bell rings, come out stabbing, slashing flesh, mutilating and chopping off limbs, violently maiming and killing.....slashing throats and 2000 lb bombs capable of any and all type mutilation/burns are also fair...bow and arrow, machetes, ok''

'' DING DING''

 

maybe they ought to allow it....I've stated this before, that wars keep lingering on because there is not a total winner...maybe after humans see a nuke go off on a city, or some bio weapons, they will stop their crap---for a little while....they will always start wars
like on Planet of the Apes

ok ok ...main point being, they want to ban WP, barrel bombs, etc but there are still horrific injuries, killings, etc..they sound like they are trying to make it ''clean''...pure....

also, NBC---ok ,that's totally different..... but barrel bombs, WP, cluster bombs and napalm they want outlawed/banned???

also, 42,000 dead from conventional warfare is an ok number?? how many dead in the Tokyo raids?? over 70,000?? that's ok as long as it is not NBC?

 

It was in the Finnish news but I guess they are referreing to these:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/06/russia-remains-loyal-syria-ally

TASS has refused the following news:

http://europe.newsweek.com/putin-asked-assad-step-down-syrian-president-418537?rm=eu

 

Seems Assad has set snap elections...?